Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but 'authorized'
crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and the
controls locked out.

Seems like such a system could be possible, though I can't see all airlines
paying the expense to install such a system.

Just a thought, but such a system could have avoided such a tragically
simple, and destructive method of attack.

I think the problem is what might happen if that system malfunctioned: the
real pilots wouldn't even be able to control the aircraft! Also, flying a
large airliner is not as hard as it may sound, and there are many people
onboard most airline flights (off-duty airline pilots, military pilots,
private pilots, etc.) who could fly the plane in the event that both pilot
and copilot became disabled, and I wouldn't want to lock out those people.

I think the key to preventing hijacking is a combination of better airport
security and better on-board security precautions, but then again I'm not a
security expert :-)

>It's too late now, but...
>
>Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but 'authorized'
>crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
>controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and the
>controls locked out.
>
>Seems like such a system could be possible, though I can't see all airlines
>paying the expense to install such a system.
>
>Just a thought, but such a system could have avoided such a tragically
>simple, and destructive method of attack.
>
>Stephen
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email .....listservKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

>Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but 'authorized'
>crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
>controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and the
>controls locked out.
>
>Seems like such a system could be possible, though I can't see all airlines
>paying the expense to install such a system.
>
>Just a thought, but such a system could have avoided such a tragically
>simple, and destructive method of attack.

You could probably do something that kept the aircraft with a "tube" of the
nominal flight plan, rather like the autopilot does. Go outside this and
emergency signals get transmitted to any listening ground station and
responders start flashing on radar plots everywhere.

"You could probably do something that kept the aircraft with a "tube" of
the
nominal flight plan, rather like the autopilot does. Go outside this and
emergency signals get transmitted to any listening ground station and
responders start flashing on radar plots everywhere."

....who then ignore them. Apparently, ATC watched the hijacked aircraft
going south (rather than west) and did nothing yesterday.

>Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but
'authorized'
>crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
>controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and
the
>controls locked out.
>
>Seems like such a system could be possible, though I can't see all
airlines
>paying the expense to install such a system.
>
>Just a thought, but such a system could have avoided such a tragically
>simple, and destructive method of attack.

You could probably do something that kept the aircraft with a "tube" of the
nominal flight plan, rather like the autopilot does. Go outside this and
emergency signals get transmitted to any listening ground station and
responders start flashing on radar plots everywhere.

> I think the problem is what might happen if that system malfunctioned: the
> real pilots wouldn't even be able to control the aircraft! Also, flying a
> large airliner is not as hard as it may sound, and there are many people
> onboard most airline flights (off-duty airline pilots, military pilots,
> private pilots, etc.) who could fly the plane in the event that both pilot
> and copilot became disabled, and I wouldn't want to lock out those people.

It's not hard to fly a large plane once its in
the air. They handle slowly and gently, the main
"flying" controls are extremely simple and the
instruments standardised and accurate. I would say
ANYONE with a couple of days briefing could fly
one. That is the scariest part of this event, any
terrorist crew who can get into a cockpit can do
this again. The press are working up the story that
this was a super-organised highly trained operation
but this is not justified. It could have been done
(and was done) much too easily.

> I think the key to preventing hijacking is a combination of better airport
> security and better on-board security precautions, but then again I'm not a
> security expert :-)

I don't think this was a security problem. The main
failure was with intelligence, they should have had
warning about this from spies in each terrorist group.

I don't see airport security as the answer either,
but a simple measure like non-opening doors between
the cockpit and the rest of the plane, an armed guard
in an area between the cockpit and plane passengers,
a simple system for gassing plane passengers (??)
all would be simple cheap deterrents and be fairly
effective in stopping this from ever happening again.
-Roman

> this again. The press are working up the story that
> this was a super-organised highly trained operation
> but this is not justified. It could have been done
> (and was done) much too easily.

Two things I've heard (from different sources) that sound
just crazy, blinkered and patronising -

Analysts saying that (a) any group from the Middle East
"wouldn't have the financial or intellectual resources" to
organise this and (b) it must have been years in the planning.
Is this really the thinking in the intelligence community ? I
could go out tomorrow and do the exact same thing with
scarcely any planning at all for the price of a ticket

> Sean H. Breheny wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is what might happen if that system malfunctioned: the
> > real pilots wouldn't even be able to control the aircraft! Also, flying a
> > large airliner is not as hard as it may sound, and there are many people
> > onboard most airline flights (off-duty airline pilots, military pilots,
> > private pilots, etc.) who could fly the plane in the event that both pilot
> > and copilot became disabled, and I wouldn't want to lock out those people.
>
> It's not hard to fly a large plane once its in
> the air. They handle slowly and gently, the main
> "flying" controls are extremely simple and the
> instruments standardised and accurate. I would say
> ANYONE with a couple of days briefing could fly
> one. That is the scariest part of this event, any
> terrorist crew who can get into a cockpit can do
> this again. The press are working up the story that
> this was a super-organised highly trained operation
> but this is not justified. It could have been done
> (and was done) much too easily.

I agree. The press has been talking about this supposedly highly trained
bunch of super-terrorists... a couple of days with MS Flight Simulator
and any 12-year-old could fly an airliner well enough to make it a
kamikaze bomb. It's not rocket science.

> > I think the key to preventing hijacking is a combination of better airport
> > security and better on-board security precautions, but then again I'm not a
> > security expert :-)
>
> I don't think this was a security problem. The main
> failure was with intelligence, they should have had
> warning about this from spies in each terrorist group.

What disturbs me about this is that one of tha names on the passenger
manifest for one flight, according to the news I read this morning,
immediately raised alarms with the FBI. OK, so why did we not notice this
asshole's name BEFORE the plane departed?

> I don't see airport security as the answer either,
> but a simple measure like non-opening doors between
> the cockpit and the rest of the plane, an armed guard
> in an area between the cockpit and plane passengers,
> a simple system for gassing plane passengers (??)
> all would be simple cheap deterrents and be fairly
> effective in stopping this from ever happening again.

Agreed. The cockpit doors lock now, but the door is so flimsy as to be a
joke. I think a little extra weight invested in an armored door would be
a good idea.

Dale
--
Hallo, this is Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux as Leennuks.
Hallo, this is Bill Gates and I pronounce 'crap' as 'Windows'.

I doubt there was anything they could have done. When the transponder
was turned off and the flight took a wrong turn, it would have been
obvious there was a hijacking. However, there have been hijackings in
the past, and the prescription is to wait for the hijacker's to make
demands, study the passenjer lists to see if anyone 'sensitive' was on
board, etc.

One key about flights, though, is that airline pilots are not only
allowed but expected to make many adjustments to their flight path as
they go, since their equipment will know what's ahead better than ground
equipment. I can see in the future where all our radar and weather
systems are optimized so that small adjustments can be determined from
the ground, adn the planes will better fly themselves.

It may well have been that the FAA knew of up to 3 of the hijackings at
once, but even then, it probably was incomprehensable what that meant
until a plane dropped below radar, and they got reports of the first
plane plowing into the WTC.

It was unlikely that the hijackers communicated with the FAA, though I
could see them doing it to buy time.

I suspect that hijacked or suspected hijacked planes will now receive
military escorts as a standard operating procedure (within reason -
obviously if the hijacker's state they will kill people if the jets
don't back off, then the escort would have to be close but not noticable)

Metal scanners and those who operate them will receive more attention,
and for the next few months it will not be fun to fly.

>"You could probably do something that kept the aircraft with a "tube" of
>the
>nominal flight plan, rather like the autopilot does. Go outside this and
>emergency signals get transmitted to any listening ground station and
>responders start flashing on radar plots everywhere."
>
>....who then ignore them. Apparently, ATC watched the hijacked aircraft
>going south (rather than west) and did nothing yesterday.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
>To: RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>cc:
>From: "Alan B. Pearce" <A.B.PearceEraseME.....RL.AC.UK>
>Subject: Re: [OT]: Disabling hijacking?
>
>
>
>>Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but
>>
>'authorized'
>
>>crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
>>controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and
>>
>the
>
>>controls locked out.
>>
>>Seems like such a system could be possible, though I can't see all
>>
>airlines
>
>>paying the expense to install such a system.
>>
>>Just a thought, but such a system could have avoided such a tragically
>>simple, and destructive method of attack.
>>
>
>You could probably do something that kept the aircraft with a "tube" of the
>nominal flight plan, rather like the autopilot does. Go outside this and
>emergency signals get transmitted to any listening ground station and
>responders start flashing on radar plots everywhere.
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email EraseMElistservmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email RemoveMElistservEraseMEEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>
>
>
>

In an attempt to change this from an EMOTIONAL
discussion to an INTELLECTUAL one, with no offense
intended to anyone who has emotions on this, as i'm
sure we all do. :o)

Has anyone noticed the BAD standard of reporting
on these events?? Or is it just me?

Normally with any massive disaster the public's
need for information is respected, and the reporting
is fairly good. What about these points:

* 100% footage is showing a few people being found
alive in NY, 0% footage is showing the body count,
number of bodies currently excavated, number of people
injured, unaccounted for etc etc. The organisers MUST
value this information and be keeping close tabs on
it, my only conclusion is that they are deliberately
keeping the world uninformed. with any other disaster
these facts are shown and updated constantly.

* Media seems VERY intent on lecturing everyone that
"these must be super-organised super-rich terrorists
who trained for 10 years". Hmm. Reality? Any psycho
McVey and his buddies could have pulled this attack
off. My conclusion? Again deliberate coverup and
misinformation, peasants need to feel secure, and
they don't want to encourage loony groups. We are
being fed an insulting line of baloney.

* 4th plane crashes in the woods. Nobody knows why.
BUT we hear some info that on THAT plane a passenger
used a cell phone and alerted the authorities. Same
passenger noted an explosion, smoke, then crash??
Just happened to be middle of nowhere near a small
airfield? No witnesses? My conclusion, someone made
the hard call and ordered it shot down by a fighter
from small airfield when it was safe with no witnesses
around.

* We hear really vague reports now about OTHER planes
doing suspicious things. How many? Where? Maybe this
was part of a larger attempt?

I'm not a "conspiracy" oriented person, but I must say
i'm getting really pi$$ed off with being fed hours of
footage that means very little while the critical facts
like body count are ignored. Sure the rest of the world
is waiting to find out if in NY 500 people died or
20,000. Why tell them anything? Only stupid peasants.
Feed them crap info. Maybe 20,000 dead? Or just 500?
Just show a couple of firemen found alive, that will
appease the stupid masses for a few more hours.
Wasn't it the Nazis that had a very good control of
what the media were allowed to tell the people?
-Roman

> Couldn't a biometric system be created to not allow anyone but 'authorized'
> crew to control the aircraft? In the event of someone else taking the
> controls a beacon could be enabled to tell ground crew of the fact, and the
> controls locked out.

Or maybe a locked (and secure) cabin door. Maybe a pilot activated "land
at the nearest airport switch" which can't be disbled once activated.

>* Media seems VERY intent on lecturing everyone that
>"these must be super-organised super-rich terrorists
>who trained for 10 years". Hmm. Reality? Any psycho
>McVey and his buddies could have pulled this attack
>off. My conclusion? Again deliberate coverup and
>misinformation, peasants need to feel secure, and
>they don't want to encourage loony groups. We are
>being fed an insulting line of baloney.

Read my tag line below. During the Oaklahoma City bombing all of the
"experts" (has-been drips under pressure) were all set to hang the bombing
on some radical Islamic group. Turns out to be one of our own. History
repeating itself?

>* 4th plane crashes in the woods. Nobody knows why.

Could be a thousand reasons why. Including some sinister things.

>* We hear really vague reports now about OTHER planes
>doing suspicious things. How many? Where? Maybe this
>was part of a larger attempt?

Briefly heard this. Then nothing. Keep in mind there *were* a lot of
things reported quickly without verifying them. Classic example was the
report that they found a bunch of explosives on the George Washington
Bridge. Turned out that a van with three guys in it were stopped in the
Meadowlands and arrested for questioning. No explosives were found. WTF is
that about?

>I'm not a "conspiracy" oriented person,

Neither am I. Nor do I have enough respect for the media or our government
to be capable of pulling off a conspiracy and covering it up very well.

Playing Devil's advocate for a minute here.... One reason I can think of
for not reporting an estimated body count (too early for an accurate one,
trust me on this one) would be to not give the bastards satisfaction. Just
a thought...

One thing that does bother me is the report I hear of their finding a car
in Boston "with flight manuals written in Arabic." I'm sorry, but that
reads like something from a pulp fiction written for teenager tastes....

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peter L. Berghold RemoveMEPeterKILLspamBerghold.Net
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

At 09:27 AM 9/12/01 -0700, James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:
>Turns out the PA plane crashed while the passengers were trying to wrestle
>control back from the terrorists.
>http://www.msnbc.com.edgesuite.net/news/627214_asp.htm
>
>These people are true world heroes who saved more lives than they will ever
>know by not accepting the situation and not rationalizing that they might
>survive if they capitulated.
>
>I cannot express how proud I am of them.

I would like to think that in a similar situation, I would do the same.
True heroes.

I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.

Roman Black wrote:
>In an attempt to change this from an EMOTIONAL
>discussion to an INTELLECTUAL one, with no offense
>intended to anyone who has emotions on this, as i'm
>sure we all do. :o)
>
>Has anyone noticed the BAD standard of reporting
>on these events?? Or is it just me?
>

Yes, but too soon [same day] for anyone much to know much
of anything.
=========

Fueled by words from ex-CIA morons - like, Woolsey. 8 hours
later, it turns out 3-5 men armed with things like plastic
knives and other sharp items [apparently no guns] took over
the planes, ... alos manuals found in cars telling how to fly
a plane - "... super-organised super-rich ...", indeed.
==========

>
>* 4th plane crashes in the woods. Nobody knows why.
>BUT we hear some info that on THAT plane a passenger
>used a cell phone and alerted the authorities. Same
>passenger noted an explosion, smoke, then crash??
>Just happened to be middle of nowhere near a small
>airfield? No witnesses? My conclusion, someone made
>the hard call and ordered it shot down by a fighter
>from small airfield when it was safe with no witnesses
>around........

1000s of planes in the air corridor over the east. Literally
impossible to tell if one not near an airport is doing something
a little funny. No time to figure it out, and react [shoot down]
in the time frame in question. Plus plane goes straight into the
gnd, forms a deep 30' x 30' crater, not blown into bits 30,000
feet in the air.
=============

>
>I'm not a "conspiracy" oriented person, but I must say
>i'm getting really pi$$ed off with being fed hours of
>footage that means very little while the critical facts
>like body count are ignored.
..........
>Wasn't it the Nazis that had a very good control of
>what the media were allowed to tell the people?

Under 24 hours - too soon I think, Roman, to get all the
hard details. One fireman interviewed said, "... body parts
everywhere ...". What more can you say?

They won't know whether 50,000 or 2,000 died in the towers
until all the individual companies involved do head counts.
How long will that take?

One good point is that they interviewed a woman who was on the
"90th" floor of the 1st tower - the plane hit at floor 93.
She and her entire office actually had time to walk down the
stairs 90 floors to safety. Sounds like many had time and means
to get out - thankfully.

BTW, I think we in america have learned to take the output
of the media with a grain of salt - forget most of what they
"say" for the 1st 24 hours, and watch the pictures. Eg, first
thing they said was the 4th plane was "probably" headed for Camp
David. Total BS - they could never even find it in the woods.
It was clearly headed for the White House or Capitol bldg - had
it not crashed. Blowing up Camp David would be "worth" nothing.

> 1000s of planes in the air corridor over the east. Literally
> impossible to tell if one not near an airport is doing something
> a little funny. No time to figure it out, and react [shoot down]
> in the time frame in question. Plus plane goes straight into the
> gnd, forms a deep 30' x 30' crater, not blown into bits 30,000
> feet in the air.
> =============

There are only about 3000 airliners in the country, and a lot of them are on
the ground loading and unloading at any one time. They always fly "IFR",
which means that they are in constant contact with air traffic controllers.
If they don't hear from an airliner for 5 minutes, a controller will already
be wondering if something's wrong. Airliners (and the vast majority of
other planes) have transponders, that send back a code when they are
"pinged" by radar. This code helps the FAA's 50-year-old computers draw a
"shrimp boat" with the flight number next to the dot on the screen. The
first thing a pilot does at the first hint of a hijacking is to switch the
code on the transponder to a special one that says "I've been hijacked".
This sets off bells and whistles and stuff on the controller's console.
Supposedly the first thing the hijackers did was turn off the transponder,
but that would only make it more suspicious.

No, air traffic controllers knew within a couple of minutes that the planes
were hijacked, and they had them on radar, so they knew where they were and
which way they were headed.

Usually hijackers make some sort of demands and want to be taken somewhere,
so standard procedures work on that assumption. Humor the nut, and you can
probably talk him down somewhere and nobody gets hurt.

These guys had a new strategy. We haven't had hijackers grabbing the
controls and diving the plane into some target before, so the standard
procedures didn't work.

The new tactic apparently worked for, at most, an hour.

Someody had wised up. Maybe it was the Air Force and they shot the plane
down. It's starting to sound like it was the passengers and crew who
figured out that, unlike the usual kind of nut, with these lunatics, the
best strategy was to fight back, even if it meant everyone on the plane
died.

I think we may have had a planeload of ordinary folks who behaved like
heroes and taught us all a new paradigm for dealing with hijackers.
Heightened airport security or not, I don't think a tactic like the one
these guys used will ever work as well as it did this time.

Don, while I realize it's not the main part of your post, I disagree with
your descriptions of air traffic control.

First, "IFR" is "Instrument Flight Reference." This is only flown when
visibility is low, such as when you are in clouds. It has nothing to do with
controllers - only the weather, and the need for the pilot to be IFR
certified. You can be IFR out in the middle of the Pacific where there is no
air traffic control. Controllers often assist in IFR conditions, but by no
means are airplanes under IFR conditions just because they are commercial or
because they are in controlled airspace. In fact, you really want to avoid
IFR whenever you can.

"VFR" is what you fly on clear days - "Visual Flight Reference". But once
again, nothing to do with controllers, just the fact that you only need to
look out the window to avoid the ground.

You're only controlled in controlled airspace. It's perfectly alright to be
dead silent for minutes or hours at a time in these areas. Ever listened to
the pilots on one of those on-board earphones? They can go hours with no
contact. If each of the 40K flights a day was talking every 5 minutes, the
channels would be jammed completely. You only talk when required by some
condition of flight or when you are asked a question.

I've flown private planes with my dad (I'm not a pilot, he is), and I have
many friends and a brother that are commercial pilots. The only time you
really talk a lot is during takeoff and landing when you are in the densest
of controlled airspaces. After that, you are cleared on your flight plan and
set free. No need to talk after that until you approach your destination, or
intermittently as you cross certain boundaries.

Finally an "off" transponder is not suspicious. First, they get turned off
on accident all the time, or they fail, so that is the first assumption.
Second, they need to be off for a while before the system really comes to
the conclusion that the transponder is no longer squawking. It's not like
the radar has a constant link with the transponder, so it being turned off
is not instantly apparent to those on the ground.

............
>Someody had wised up. Maybe it was the Air Force and they shot the plane
>down. It's starting to sound like it was the passengers and crew who
>figured out that, unlike the usual kind of nut, with these lunatics, the
>best strategy was to fight back, even if it meant everyone on the plane
>died.
>

As mentioned, given the "footprint" the plane made on the ground,
it is pretty certain it was not shot down but dove straight in.

"As mentioned, given the "footprint" the
plane made on the ground, it is pretty
certain it was not shot down but dove
straight in."

It's been all over the news, including interviews with
a woman named 'Hogland' (sp?) (who received one of these
calls) wherein several people on this flight made phone
calls via cellular and Airphone and expressed the thoughts
that 'they were going to do something about the hijacking'.

I suspect, and many others (with much more in the way of
credentials in the aviation area) also suspect that this
is indeed what happened to this flight - passengers
thwarted the hijacking.

The question I have, is, were these people on this flight
aware of what had happened to the WTC buildings at the
point they made their plans to atack their captors?

IFR is Instrument Flight Rules, referring to specific
portions of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). It
includes specific requirements to report position to the
ground controllers. Reporting requirements can be
waived if being monitored on radar.

> This is only flown when visibility is low, such as when you
> are in clouds.

There are different rules for different types of operations.
Private usage is FAR part 91; commercial (for-hire) is part
135; and airliners (scheduled commercial service) is part 121.
The same aicraft may be operated under different parts
depending on the purpose of the flight.

> Controllers often assist in IFR conditions, but by no means
> are airplanes under IFR conditions

Frequently "IFR conditions" is used to denote an aircraft
being operated solely by reference to instruments due to
weather. A more correct term is "instrument conditions"
as that has no ambiguity with rules versus weather.

> just because they are commercial

Certain commercial operations require operating under IFR
flight plans at all times. If not by federal mandate, then
by company policy.

> or because they are in controlled airspace.

Basically true.

> In fact, you really want to avoid IFR whenever you can.

If you can -- both the rules & the weather conditions. :-)

> "VFR" is what you fly on clear days - "Visual Flight Reference".

VFR is Visual Flight Rules in the FARs. And if you are below a
certain altitude (18,000 is the base of class A airspace, formerly
called positive control area (which ends at 60,000 feet)).

> It's perfectly alright to be dead silent for minutes or hours
> at a time in these areas.

VFR or IFR, it's quite common to not converse wtih a controller
for long periods in unpopulated areas. The northeast US is so
heavily populated, there are special routes and flow controls.
And deviation from your route will be noticed fairly quickly --
mainly because it impacts airspace that the controller wants to
put some other aircraft into.

> Finally an "off" transponder is not suspicious. First, they get
> turned off on accident all the time, or they fail, so that is
> the first assumption.

Transponders are on the minimum equipment list (MEL) of large
turbine powered aircraft. I believe that they are usually
installed in airliners in pairs for redundancy. A failed
transponder that keeps a multi-million dollar aircraft on the
ground is not acceptable business practice.

> Second, they need to be off for a while before the system
> really comes to the conclusion that the transponder is no
> longer squawking. It's not like the radar has a constant link
> with the transponder, so it being turned off is not instantly
> apparent to those on the ground.

It's not constant, but the radar sweeps around every 6-10
seconds. Lack of all returns for a minute is probably enough.
And if the aircraft has a data block assigned by the computer,
lack of returns will trigger an alert to the controller.

It turns out that one man who called his wife to tell her about the
hijacking indicated that he was considering doing something. She
related to him that planes had hit the towers (I don't recall whether
this was before or after he told her we wanted to become /more/
involved). When they reveal full details I imagine it'll be determined
that the plane went down within an hour of that call.

I suspect the hijackers were hijacked, or that while the struggle was
happening the hijacking pilot drove the plane into the ground rather
than be caught.

We'll know more once the black box (which is actually bright orange) is
retrieved. The really interesting part will be determing who was
piloting the plane and when. It could very well be a passenger was
trying to crash land, and didn't understand how to slow down properly,
or contact someone via radio...

I can't imagine sifting through a plane crash, looking for a small box,
nevermind going through the rubble of the towers...

>Someody had wised up. Maybe it was the Air Force and they shot the plane
>down. It's starting to sound like it was the passengers and crew who
>figured out that, unlike the usual kind of nut, with these lunatics, the
>best strategy was to fight back, even if it meant everyone on the plane
>died.
>
>I think we may have had a planeload of ordinary folks who behaved like
>heroes and taught us all a new paradigm for dealing with hijackers.
>Heightened airport security or not, I don't think a tactic like the one
>these guys used will ever work as well as it did this time.
>

Thanks for the clarifications Lee. I always mix up "reference" and "rules"
for some reason.

As I say, I'm not a pilot, but I don't think that the controllers
necessarily knew that a plane was hijacked just because they didn't talk for
5 minutes or because the transponder was off. While I agree an off
transponder would be noiced within minutes, the fact is that they do end up
off or broken, and the first reaction of a controller is not that of a
serious problem with the aircraft. More like "United 123, squawk contact
lost- check transponder."

jvpoll wrote:
.........
>The question I have, is, were these people on this flight
>aware of what had happened to the WTC buildings at the
>point they made their plans to atack their captors?
>

Probably, considering people were calling out on cellphones.
Paper shows 1st plane = 8:45, 2nd plane = 9:03, 3rd plane
= 9:45, and last plane crashed at 10:10 - one hour after it
was clear to TV viewers what was going on.

I believe these people should be given medals, they acted unselfishly to
save others.

Regards,

Kat.

____________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this email and any files transmitted with it
are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
promptly notify the sender by reply email and then delete the email and
destroy any printed copy. If you have received this email in error, you must
not disclose or use this information in any way.
____________________________________________________________________________

> Turns out the PA plane crashed while the passengers were trying to wrestle
> control back from the terrorists.
> http://www.msnbc.com.edgesuite.net/news/627214_asp.htm
>
> These people are true world heroes who saved more lives than they will
ever
> know by not accepting the situation and not rationalizing that they might
> survive if they capitulated.
>
> I cannot express how proud I am of them.
>
> ---
> James Newton, Admin #3 TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonspampiclist.com
> 1-619-652-0593 VM 1-208-279-8767 FAX
> PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org
>
> {Original Message removed}

They still seem intent on promoting the
"highly trained pilot" propaganda on the
CNN news...

> >* 4th plane crashes in the woods. Nobody knows why.

> 1000s of planes in the air corridor over the east. Literally
> impossible to tell if one not near an airport is doing something
> a little funny. No time to figure it out, and react [shoot down]
> in the time frame in question. Plus plane goes straight into the
> gnd, forms a deep 30' x 30' crater, not blown into bits 30,000
> feet in the air.

Yeah, exactly what happens if you blow it's tail
off with a sidewinder. :o)
Seriously, IF the plane was brought down by passengers
who knew about NY and were trying to avoid the same
end, I agree they deserve a medal. Not that their
families will see it as much consolation, but hopefully
hundreds of other families were saved.

> >Wasn't it the Nazis that had a very good control of
> >what the media were allowed to tell the people?
>
> Under 24 hours - too soon I think, Roman, to get all the
> hard details. One fireman interviewed said, "... body parts
> everywhere ...". What more can you say?

Yeah, that's nasty stuff. I've got a feeling that
initially large scale recovery has taken a second
place to FBI "inspection", which is unfortunate
for potential survivors and the families of the
dead. :o(

> They won't know whether 50,000 or 2,000 died in the towers
> until all the individual companies involved do head counts.
> How long will that take?

I imagine there is a "processing" center where
people can log in that someone is missing, who
worked there or near there, and the figures should
be 90% reliable within a day or so. That is one
of the first things I would have done if acting
as Mayor, along with the other obvious stuff.
If your wife/child/parent etc worked in the WTC
wouldn't you be calling in? By now I would have
expected something like a televised "telethon"
to try and tabulate who has been recovered alive
or dead, and who is still missing.
Sad times. :o(
-Roman

> BTW, I think we in america have learned to take the output
> of the media with a grain of salt - forget most of what they
> "say" for the 1st 24 hours, and watch the pictures. Eg, first
> thing they said was the 4th plane was "probably" headed for Camp
> David. Total BS - they could never even find it in the woods.
> It was clearly headed for the White House or Capitol bldg - had
> it not crashed. Blowing up Camp David would be "worth" nothing.

I disagree. I think logic dictates that the
4th plane was destined for the Pentagon also.
Fits their method. One is a backup. The Whitehouse
and Capitol may be emotional targets for the US
public, but this was not a typical terrorist
attck, designed to get attention.

This attack is scary in that it was not done for
attention, or to make a point, it was done TO HURT
THE USA. The huge financial damage done at the WTC,
the upsets to Wall Street and currencies, most
which haven't yet happened but will...

Taking out the Whitehouse or Capitol is symbolic,
but doesn't produce the hurt. Now the Pentagon...
Here you have the nuts and bolts of the running
of the military and higher workings of the US.
2 planes for the WTC, 2 for the Pentagon.
That's my call, because this was not terrorism,
this was WAR, planned to HURT the enemy, not
just SHOCK the enemy and make a point.

That's the real issue. That's why nobody wants
to put their hand up and claim responsibility.
That would be stupid. Success HAS already been
achieved. HURT the enemy hard, when they are not
ready for it, then get away with it. Media can
call it cowardice, but this is not cowardice, it's
smart tactics agains a large enemy. We are taught
the same thing in martial arts, when facing a big
(or multiple) opponent, hit very hard with no
warning, cause a lot of damage, don't get caught.

That's the real issue. That's why nobody wants
to put their hand up and claim responsibility.
That would be stupid. Success HAS already been
achieved. HURT the enemy hard, when they are not
ready for it, then get away with it. Media can
call it cowardice, but this is not cowardice, it's
smart tactics agains a large enemy. We are taught
the same thing in martial arts, when facing a big
(or multiple) opponent, hit very hard with no
warning, cause a lot of damage, don't get caught.

I'm inclined to agree. These people have no normal means of hurting a
massive military power like the USA so they have to resort to other "more
stealthy" means. There is no way that they would have been able to fly a
squadron of MiG 21s, say, into the US without being obliterated on the way.
They could also have taken a suitcase full of something nasty into NY and
caused massive loss of life but they chose a completely public and utterly
high profile way of humiliating the USA (and the West) with complete and
utter disregard for human life.

It was to hurt and it has very unfortunately been effective. I just hope
everyone keeps a cool head and when the retribution does come (which it
will), it will be towards the right people. I really do fear for what will
happen if indiscriminate retribution becomes the order of the day - that is
no better than what these terrorists have done and we (the West) should be
above that. It seems that Bush is keeping it cool (my opinion of him has
changed for the better because of this) and I hope it stays that way.

As for the reporting, I find it hard to believe that the FBI have collared
some people so early but, then again, if the entire FBI is on the case then
maybe it is so.

I must say "good strength" to those emergency workers who must be seeing
terrible sights.

> BTW, I think we in america have learned to take the output
> of the media with a grain of salt - forget most of what they
> "say" for the 1st 24 hours, and watch the pictures. Eg, first
> thing they said was the 4th plane was "probably" headed for Camp
> David. Total BS - they could never even find it in the woods.
> It was clearly headed for the White House or Capitol bldg - had
> it not crashed. Blowing up Camp David would be "worth" nothing.

I disagree. I think logic dictates that the
4th plane was destined for the Pentagon also.
Fits their method. One is a backup. The Whitehouse
and Capitol may be emotional targets for the US
public, but this was not a typical terrorist
attck, designed to get attention.

This attack is scary in that it was not done for
attention, or to make a point, it was done TO HURT
THE USA. The huge financial damage done at the WTC,
the upsets to Wall Street and currencies, most
which haven't yet happened but will...

Taking out the Whitehouse or Capitol is symbolic,
but doesn't produce the hurt. Now the Pentagon...
Here you have the nuts and bolts of the running
of the military and higher workings of the US.
2 planes for the WTC, 2 for the Pentagon.
That's my call, because this was not terrorism,
this was WAR, planned to HURT the enemy, not
just SHOCK the enemy and make a point.

That's the real issue. That's why nobody wants
to put their hand up and claim responsibility.
That would be stupid. Success HAS already been
achieved. HURT the enemy hard, when they are not
ready for it, then get away with it. Media can
call it cowardice, but this is not cowardice, it's
smart tactics agains a large enemy. We are taught
the same thing in martial arts, when facing a big
(or multiple) opponent, hit very hard with no
warning, cause a lot of damage, don't get caught.

Living in Pittsburgh, we got quite a bit of coverage of the crash near
here. The crash was similar to that of USAirways flight 427 a few years
ago, but the debris is quite different. In the USAirways crash there
was a lot of large identifiable debris; in this case there wasn't
anything bigger that a phone book. I can only imagine what was going on
in that plane when the passengers attempted to regain control from the
suicidal b*stards. My hat goes off to them, and my heart and prayers go
out to the loved-ones of all victims. When the s*it hits the fan, I
will not dance in the streets, but I will not grieve either.

>
> Dan Michaels wrote:
> >
> >As mentioned, given the "footprint" the plane made on the ground,
> >it is pretty certain it was not shot down but dove straight in.
> >
>
> I'd have to agree on that point. Had the aircraft been shot down, the debris
> field would have been very large.
>
> It sounds to me like some heroes on that flight sacrificed their own lives
> to prevent a greater loss of life.
>
> Regards, Bob
>

>As I say, I'm not a pilot, but I don't think that the controllers
>necessarily knew that a plane was hijacked just because they didn't talk for
>5 minutes or because the transponder was off. While I agree an off
>transponder would be noiced within minutes, the fact is that they do end up
>off or broken, and the first reaction of a controller is not that of a
>serious problem with the aircraft. More like "United 123, squawk contact
>lost- check transponder."
.........
>

They said on the news this morning that the air traffic
controllers knew something was happening, but they didn't
know what. One spokesman for the FAA this morning called
"again" for video cams to be installed in cockpits for this
very reason -[of course this has its own set of problems ...].

Info is starting to come in. They have already assigned 1000s of
FBI agents to this and interviewed families of everyone on the
planes. They have said that all or most of the "pilots" were
actually trained in the US. Only details given so far is 2 guys
from one of the hijacked airliners trained for months in Florida
on piloting small planes, then took some lessons in a large flight
simulator. Apparently, in america, anyone with money can do this.
Possibly all of the guys had been in the US for a year or more
preparing.

This, plus considering that there were only 3-6 hijackers per
plane, plus that it appears most of the hijackers used plastic
knives and box cutters [razor blades] as weapons - and not
submachine guns/etc - and simply walked thru the security points,
shows how simple the plan actually was to carry out.
=====================

>
>
>> >* 4th plane crashes in the woods. Nobody knows why.
>
>> 1000s of planes in the air corridor over the east. Literally
>> impossible to tell if one not near an airport is doing something
>> a little funny. No time to figure it out, and react [shoot down]
>> in the time frame in question. Plus plane goes straight into the
>> gnd, forms a deep 30' x 30' crater, not blown into bits 30,000
>> feet in the air.
>
>Yeah, exactly what happens if you blow it's tail
>off with a sidewinder. :o)
>Seriously, IF the plane was brought down by passengers
>who knew about NY and were trying to avoid the same
>end, I agree they deserve a medal. Not that their
>families will see it as much consolation, but hopefully
>hundreds of other families were saved.
>

DOD spokesmen said the the plane was "not" shot down. No doubt
brought down in a fight between the passengers and hijackers,
which ensued ~1 hour after the 1st planes hit the WTC, and the
passengers had heard about this via cell phones.
===========

>
>> >Wasn't it the Nazis that had a very good control of
>> >what the media were allowed to tell the people?
>>
>> Under 24 hours - too soon I think, Roman, to get all the
>> hard details. One fireman interviewed said, "... body parts
>> everywhere ...". What more can you say?
>
>Yeah, that's nasty stuff. I've got a feeling that
>initially large scale recovery has taken a second
>place to FBI "inspection", which is unfortunate
>for potential survivors and the families of the
>dead. :o(
>

Anything coming out of the media is certainly to be questioned,
but as I said, to many things are simply not known at present.
It takes time.
==============

>
>> They won't know whether 50,000 or 2,000 died in the towers
>> until all the individual companies involved do head counts.
>> How long will that take?
>
>I imagine there is a "processing" center where
>people can log in that someone is missing, who
>worked there or near there, and the figures should
>be 90% reliable within a day or so. That is one
>of the first things I would have done if acting
>as Mayor, along with the other obvious stuff.
>If your wife/child/parent etc worked in the WTC
>wouldn't you be calling in? By now I would have
>expected something like a televised "telethon"
>to try and tabulate who has been recovered alive
>or dead, and who is still missing.
>Sad times. :o(

This has all been done now. Reports are coming in, mainly
from companies that had offices in the WTC. Luckily, many
were able to escape. It will take a few more days before
they have a good estimate. The workers are still just
clearing rubble and finding bodies around the bldgs,
whereas most bldg victims are inside the bldg rubble
- one guy said most of the 110 story rubble is in the
sub-basements.

> As mentioned, given the "footprint" the plane made on the ground,
> it is pretty certain it was not shot down but dove straight in.

Precisely what I would expect to see happen after an air-to-air missile
removed one of the wing mounted engines (along with half the wing at least).
The plane would knife over and run straight in. Of course the hostages
could have had the foresight to crash the plane in an unpopulated area, but
I doubt that. Of course they would have had to figure out how to get into
the locked cabin. Threats of killing remaining passengers would probably
not work.

My theory is based upon the reports of scrambled F-16's following the jet
for miles and "the fact" that the "hero" passenger (locked in the bathroom
BTW) said he saw white smoke (after a loud bang was heard over the phone).
Followed by screams. Seems much more likely that an F-16 splashed the jet,
and not the passengers. Just my 2 cents. I am not saying that the F-16 did
the wrong thing, quite the contrary. BTW debris is scattered over 6 miles.